News, politics, insights, inside information from the left

Main Menu

After desperate government scrambling to prevent the amendment being tabled at all, an amendment to the ‘Business of the House’ motion has been supported by MPs by a margin of 308 to 297 – yet another defeat for a tottering government, with some eighteen Tory MPs supporting the amendment.

The amendment, tabled by Tory backbencher Dominic Grieve, calls on the government, in the event of Theresa May’s deal being defeated on 15 January, to come back for a further meaningful vote within three sitting days rather than the current ’21 plus 7′ the government could take.

However, reports that this means that the government must do so are exaggerated. The motion is not binding, although Theresa May would face political pressure to do so – and political embarrassment if she does not.

SKWAWKBOX comment:

Yet another Commons defeat for Theresa May shows her government’s utter inefficacy. However, anyone who thinks her unlikely to simply try to ignore the will of the House on this matter has forgotten the Tories’ previous readiness to do so and their demonstrated contempt for Parliament.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

This merely reflects how the combined economic-political elite which has dominated for the last 40 years are determined that, despite the referendum, Britain should either to stay in the EU or in something which has the same rules as the EU – i.e. rules which compel allegiance to the rules-based system of neoliberal globalised capitalism, regardless of the vagaries of how the “lower orders” vote in democratic elections and referenda.

A great many Corbynistas for all their “right on” pretentions have essentially the same allegiance to globalised capitalism.

Danny: I do agree with what you are saying but people are not being given the information essential to making a proper judgment.

I have posted this before but people really should take note of what this world renowned academic is saying. The EU is fundamentally flawed economically, it’s corporate Neo-Liberal doctrine works against the interests of ordinary people and in favour of the 1%.

All due respect but he is not saying it is fundamentally flawed economically he is saying the policy solutions that have been followed are flawed because they have a particular effect on the bottom 30% of the income distribution.

You have to put it in the context of his wider arguments about the changes in the underlying ideas driving world behaviour in his book “Great Transformations Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century”.

As an institution in a global ideas environment driven by a neo-liberal ideas base the EU is inevitably going to be affected and behaviour in alignment with global ideas trends. That is not the same as saying the EU is in itself a neo-liberal body. In many ways it is the least neoliberal supra national body in the economic west.

The structural criticism of the Euro is related to the complete divorce between monetary and fiscal policy. If all you can do is control monetary policy through the ECB and set anti inflation contractionary targets but have no fiscal powers or structure to compensate for the impact of these polices then you will inevitably have problems. The Euro zone is in a sense structurally flawed but it is so because it is being used in a policy manner in the wrong way. If there was a better recognition of the limits of Euro zone policy options as a consequence of the structure it might be more sustainable.

Though of course this has nothing to do with Brexit because the UK is not in the Euro or bound by the Stability and Growth Pact or the TSCG.

It is not that the criticism of the EU is wrong but the solution being offered by Brexit is mistaken, to quote H.L.Mencken – “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

To me Brexit is tantamount to complaining your CLP EC is run by the right wingers/centrists and they are misusing the rules and carrying out policies that are damaging to a minority of the membership. So your solution is to CLPexit and walk away. It is pretty obvious that the Party would never change if everyone did that.

The EU is a behemoth in some ways and incredibly resistant to radical reform so it is very difficult to bring reform to it but if any long term change is going to be made to the global system of neo-liberalism it has to be started somewhere and at a supra national level. Changing the global system will be even harder after all. So unless the plan is to build a kind of Cuba on the channel in splendid isolation then running away to pull up the drawbridge is ultimately self defeating and Brexit/Lexit are just fundamentally bad responses to the needs of a future socialist society.

“As an institution in a global ideas environment driven by a neo-liberal ideas base the EU is inevitably going to be affected and behaviour in alignment with global ideas trends. That is not the same as saying the EU is in itself a neo-liberal body.” Actually it is; it’s exactly the same. A body behaving in strict adherence to neoliberal principles is a neo-liberal body.

“In many ways it is the least neo-liberal supra national body in the economic west.” Tell that to Greece, and Italy. If the rigorous implementation of the policy of austerity – socialising the losses of banking profligacy – ten years after the financial crash makes the EU the least neo-liberal supra national body in the economic west then black is white. Even the IMF has questioned the policy’s efficacy.

I just wanted to add a documentary based on Prof Richard Werner’s book ‘Princes of the Yen’ which shows the bigger global picture of how neoliberal/neo-classical economic ‘restructuring’ works using central banks and IMF. Short Eurozone section begins at 1.21.53 but it is well worth taking the time to watch the whole video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEKf0iWf-oQ

Prof Michael Hudson also points out how the neo-classical/neoliberal ideology has become hegemonic in the western and allied education systems and of course many countries send their economists for a (neoliberal) western education. Link to follow.

No it’s not the same at all. Just because you are in a swimming pool doesn’t make you water. The EU operates in a wider Neo-Liberal global context. Yes it does often behave in a neo-liberal way as a consequence because it does not operate in a vacuum. That does mean that at its core it is nothing more than a neo-liberal body.

You no doubt buy/sell goods, save, perhaps invest, because you live in market economy. So does all that mean you are a through and through capitalist?

I doubt you could even articulate what strict neo-Liberal principles actually are or the ideological or intellectual background to neoliberalism. It’s just a rote phrase you toss about. Your version of 4 legs good – 2 legs bad.

It is always the same old canards every time. The question is about Brexit not if Greece got fucked. The issue is what is going to be best for the UK. The UK is not a part of the Stability Treaty, the Euro or the TSCG (did you know that?). We are not bound by those fiscal rules or the limitations on debt as a proportion of GDP. So what happened to Greece could not happen to us and therefore is not a sensible or relevant justification for Brexit. Can you etail what happened to create the financial crisis in Greece? It smacks a lot more of you just parroting the usual Lexit shite about Greece and you don’t really know arse from elbow, like most Brexiteers or Lexiteers.

I agree the Euro sucks and is a bad system that would be better scrapped. It doesn’t follow from that the UK should run off from the EU. The IMF is schizophrenic. Le Gard defends austerity but the economic research arm of the IMF has questioned austerity.

“Just because you are in a swimming pool doesn’t make you water.” True, but it does mean you have to swim, or drown.

“I doubt you could even articulate what strict neo-Liberal principles actually are or the ideological or intellectual background to neoliberalism.”

Really? The current interpretation of neoliberalism, which diverges from its origins in Classical Liberalism, which sought to maximise individual liberty and recognised the threat to that freedom inherent in free market economics, had its inception in the opposition to the Pinochet regime and the economic policies forged by Milton Friedman in the Economics Department of Chicago University from the late forties onwards, which came to be known as the Chicago School, and which were introduced in Chile by what came to be known as the Chicago Boys, on the back of the CIA led coup that brought Pinochet to power. There is no clear definition, since there is no such thing as a body of neoliberal theory, and its definition has been largely forged by its critics, but suffice it to say, that definition holds it to be a radical laissez-faire economic policy experiment concerned with deregulation, privatisation and the withdrawal of the welfare state. It is a project to dismantle the macro-economic goals of the post war Keynsian economic consensus -essentially, full employment.

So what happened to Greece could not happen to us…”

So that’s alright then. It could well happen to any member of the Eurozone, but hey, fuck them. With club members like you, who needs enemies?

“It smacks a lot more of you just parroting the usual Lexit shite about Greece and you don’t really know arse from elbow, like most Brexiteers or Lexiteers.”

Oh I see, you think my post has given you licence, like so many centrists one this site when challenged, perfectly civilly, to get abusive. Fine. If that’s how you want it.

“Can you detail what happened to create the financial crisis in Greece?”

Yes. German, French and Italian banks, but primarily German, lent shedloads of money to Greek banks, for two reasons: firstly, so that they could sell German products. That’s how the Ponzi scheme of the neoliberal banking cartel in Europe works. And secondly, because Greece was running interest rates four percent higher than those in Germany, which means German banks stood to make a lot of money by lending. They went into a lending frenzy which was utterly irresponsible by anyone’s standards. According to neoliberal free market theory, such activities are self correcting. However, when the loans turned bad, it turned out that it was primarily the borrower, not the lender, who was responsible. In business, under such circumstances, the borrower would have declared bankruptcy, and the lender would have had to cut their losses as the price for making an ill judged loan, but the EU has that covered. Under its terms, Greece was not allowed to go bust. Instead, in stepped the Troika and they were subjected to the infamous bailout that left them even further in debt, whilst the only institutions that were bailed out were the banks, Deutsche bank being the main beneficiary, the vast majority of each quarter’s loans to Greece being clawed back in order to remunerate them.

“The IMF is schizophrenic. Le Gard defends austerity but the economic research arm of the IMF has questioned austerity.”

And while we’re on the subject, and since you’ve chosen the ad hominem route, the head of the IMF is Christine LAGARDE, you bloated and ignorant little prick. You profess some knowledge on the subject, and can’t even spell her fucking name.

And finally, “The UK is not a part of the Stability Treaty, the Euro or the TSCG (did you know that?).”

There is no such thing as “the Stability Treaty”. The ‘Fiscal Stability Treaty’, or the ‘Fiscal Compact Treaty’, is otherwise known as the ‘Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union’, ie, TSCG. You seem to think there are two separate treaties, the non existent “Stability Treaty” and TSCG. The ‘Fiscal Stability Treaty’ and TSCG are in fact one and the same thing.

You’re a fraud, and have a fucking nerve to ask me if I’m aware of these fiscal rules, since you obviously don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Or, of course, you might consider addressing people who address you civilly with an equal respect, instead of with contemptuous derision in the arrogant and baseless assumption that they have no idea what they’re talking about. It’s the rote response of most Remainers on this site, and rarely the other way round. You might want to ponder on that.

Went to a depressing Labour meeting yesterday (though I am from a poorer area were quite a lot of better off people) and they were all arguing for A Peoples Vote (funny we have had one) but they were just thinking of their own CLP area (the city by a tiny margin just voted Remain) but how would this go down in Labour Leave areas (two thirds of Labour seats)?
So Jeremy has to take in the full picture to win power nationally.
Two of those present were Anti-Corbyn (one said she had joined to get rid of him) I said Jeremy had built the party to 500k members and we had paid off £20m of debts!
One said we need to be middle of the road and I thought of previously destroyed Labour in Scotland (now recovering thanks to JC) and Labour parties hammered in Europe doing just that (apart from radical Portugal) showing Blairism is Dead!
Labour’s policy of all options is only 5 months old and yet some already try to change it.
Have faith in JC, we now stand for something exciting – a transformation of society as an example to other countries and Another Peoples Vote would make us “All the same” and perhaps as Brecht argued the sore Remain losers may need to find themselves another public.
Stand by JC and don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

I’ve come to the conclusion that Labour Right Wingers are (a) poorly read and (b) they are actually frightened of being radical.
They are in my opinion a potential obstacle (if they get their way) that will keep millions in poor pay, poverty, poor housing etc.
Left wing democratic socialists have faith in your ideas and a leader who agrees with us!
Hope May loses Deal vote next Tuesday and Labour wins No Confidence Vote May!
Jenny just get them emergency re selection plans dusted -JC needs a strong PLP backbone to go with a strong member and union backbone. JC4PM!

We haven’t even implemented the result of the 1st referendum, but we’ve had a taste of Conservatives government (or misgovernance) since – the latest time around we ‘The People’ were asked to choose – 2017. Let’s implement the result of the last Peoples Vote, then we can consider another Peoples Vote.

Actually, I wouldn’t have minded if we had a rerun of 2017 GE before we implemented the result of the first. Maybe we would have been able to deselect the Blairite wreckers who were actively decampaigning the party aided and abetted by Netanyahu and the MSM. And surely, we would have won second time around, I think.

Leavers to the public -“NO don’t be foolish. If you think in our anti-democratic world you have any chance of changing your mind, forget it.

You have to realise that there is a possibility you could make us very angry by destroying our obsession of leaving the EU. If you think there is any chance of us agreeing to it you are mistaken. We want our precious Brexit no matter what the cost to those who will suffer most.
Yes, we know that the poor will be even poorer but it’s their hard lines that they took any notice of the UKIPERS and others on the far right.

We’ve finally found a champion in Theresa May in whom we can trust, as long as you lot don’t get in the way with your democracy. If we don’t get our Brexit we will call you names, jump up and down and stamp our feet in a tantrum like you’ve never seen before”.

See my post in reply to DSD below. And you’re another one who might consider cleaning up your act when it comes to ‘debating’ with Leavers rather than consistently indulging in childish taunting. Not many on this site consider May a champion, and you know it. Grow up.

Forthestate. Ah you’re so precious that you take criticisms as insults, which is entirely typical of fanatical Leavers who under no circustances, even though it will harm the poorest most, want to have their Brexit dream shattered.

Forthestate. My ‘act’ you put it is supporting Remain but of course that warrants in your small mind a torrent of insults redilant of those barked out by the most vile of the Leavers. Go and cry on the shoulder of Leave’s champion Theresa May and while you are at it remember, most of the Labour Shadow Cabinet and Jeremy Corbyn campaigned for Remain!

No it isn’t, it’s insulting Leavers in a thoroughly puerile fashion, as your posts bear witness: “Go and cry on the shoulder of Leave’s champion Theresa May”. There you go again. It isn’t an argument, it’s school playground taunting.

“but of course that warrants in your small mind a torrent of insults”

You seem to suffer from a complete lack of self awareness. Now run along.

My apologies for being imprecise I was referring to the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) which was reformed in 2011 and led to the strengthened rules in the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG) which is referred to as the Fiscal Stability Treaty. The main point still stands that the limitations imposed by these instruments do not apply to the UK.

Although solidarity is a worthy objective I am not sure I would advocate 5-6 million unemployed as a reasonable cost to incur simply to make a symbolic gesture over the ill treatment of Greece by the Troika. You obviously feel it is worth it.

Apologies for misspelling LAGARDE as well. Should have checked rather than going from the phonetic spelling that popped into my mind.

By the way I am not a centrist.

Still I stand corrected that you do have knowledge of those issue. I would view the history of neo-liberalism as being a bit more than just Friedman and the Chicago school. You seem to have missed out the intellectual underpinnings in Von Mises and Hayek’s ideas. I will assume you did know about these as well though.

Perhaps you are right that more civil dialogue would have been better but I took my lead from the various ad hominem remarks you made to others in this thread accusing them of being bourgeois, or Tory voters, or Tory Party members. If you want respectful civil dialogue then you need to demonstrate it yourself not whine when what you seem to so readily dish out gets thrown back at you.

“My apologies for being imprecise I was referring to the Stability and Growth Pact”.

Indeed, I thought perhaps you meant that. You don’t have to explain it to me. I’m well aware of it.

“Still I stand corrected that you do have knowledge of those issues.”

Good. Your smug and arrogant assumption that I didn’t was entirely unwarranted.

“I would view the history of neo-liberalism as being a bit more than just Friedman and the Chicago school. You seem to have missed out the intellectual underpinnings in Von Mises and Hayek’s ideas.”

No, I missed out a lot more than that, deliberately. Ludwig Erhard and the Mont Pelerin Society, among many others, come to mind, but it’s a vast subject, and there’s only so much space in a short post on a thread like this.

“I will assume you did know about these as well though.”

Good. That’s a distinct improvement. Perhaps you’ve learnt something.

“I took my lead from the various ad hominem remarks you made to others in this thread accusing them of being bourgeois, or Tory voters, or Tory Party members.”

Really. Then perhaps you should have taken your lead from the comment to which I was responding. Bazza wrote, in a perfectly congenial post:

“Have faith in JC, we now stand for something exciting”,

to which, RH, another Remainer who never misses an opportunity to sneer, deride and insult, replied:

“This is politics, not f***ing religion. Join a church if you want that.”

As I said in my last post, that is typical of the tone not only of that poster, but of many other Remainers, including you, as evidenced by your sneering and contemptuous reply to my perfectly reasonable response to you.

I operate on the principal that if you dish it, then you should be treated in kind. It’s very simple. I haven’t been on this site for long, and I’m sure you’ll be pleased to know I won’t be back. In the short time I’ve been here, I’ve been repeatedly subjected, as have others, to the kind of insulting responses typified on this thread by you and RH to perfectly polite posts, and I’m fed up with it, which is why I lost my temper with you.

“If you want respectful civil dialogue then you need to demonstrate it yourself not whine when what you seem to so readily dish out gets thrown back at you.”

I’m afraid that that is a precise inversion of the facts. You’re very selective in the comments from which you choose to take your lead. Nothing could apply more appropriately to yourself, RH and a host of others. Perhaps you might bear it in mind in future.